July 23, 2012 at 8:29 am
Eric M Russell (7/23/2012)
Regardless of that formal methodology is used for appraisals, I expect that most managers mentally "stack rank" the employees in their department anyhow. What we're talking about here is a process that makes it more transparent; at least the team members know where they stand.
I believe I understand what you mean, and I see how that may be the case - but there is a huge difference that I see.
Managers probably do stack rank.
When managers are required to stack rank via some formula, where only 1 or 2 are 5s, 3 or 4 are 4s, the same with 1s and 2s, and the rest are all manadated as 3s - it ties the managers hands if they do in fact have more than 2 top performers.
Where I work we have about 20 people in roles that are somewhat similar to mine. Of those, we probably have 5-6 people that rate a 5, the rest split between 3 and 4. We really don't have any 1s that last very long, nor many 2s. The system described would require managers to rate only 1 person as a 5, 1 as a 4, some as 1s and 2s, and the rest as 3s. That does not happen with us even though our system has some similarities, because the actual count is not mandated.
Dave
July 23, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Eric M Russell (7/23/2012)
Regardless of that formal methodology is used for appraisals, I expect that most managers mentally "stack rank" the employees in their department anyhow. What we're talking about here is a process that makes it more transparent; at least the team members know where they stand.
That's why I said that managers that "stack rank" may not be good managers. If it takes a formal process to finally find out if you're doing well or not, then the manager probably isn't doing a good job with coaching, mentoring, enabling, or what have you.
I agree that it's probably not possible for the "big" manager to do that type of stuff with a large department but the "smaller" managers and immediate supervisors sure the heck can.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 23, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Stephen,
This reminds me of a performance review I once had several years ago where a manager actually brought up in my review the primary reason he was not giving me a raise that year. He said "You already make more that the other DBA's in your department, so we need to level the playing field a bit this year." I immediately replied back "Please don't penalize me because others in my department did not negotiate their salary well to begin with. That is their problem, it should not be made to be mine." Anyway, at the end of the review i promptly reported his statements to HR and he was reprimanded for saying that in a performance review, and ultimately let go. The company did give me a raise that year after all, and it was based on my performance review numbers. As it should be, not on someone else's circumstance or issues. 😀
My recent experience was a rating in which my manager told me (and was obviously embarrassed to do so) that the reason he wasnt giving me a 5 out 5 was that if he did so there would be nowhere for me to go next year!
July 23, 2012 at 8:08 pm
mtucker-732014 (7/23/2012)
Stephen,
This reminds me of a performance review I once had several years ago where a manager actually brought up in my review the primary reason he was not giving me a raise that year. He said "You already make more that the other DBA's in your department, so we need to level the playing field a bit this year." I immediately replied back "Please don't penalize me because others in my department did not negotiate their salary well to begin with. That is their problem, it should not be made to be mine." Anyway, at the end of the review i promptly reported his statements to HR and he was reprimanded for saying that in a performance review, and ultimately let go. The company did give me a raise that year after all, and it was based on my performance review numbers. As it should be, not on someone else's circumstance or issues. 😀
My recent experience was a rating in which my manager told me (and was obviously embarrassed to do so) that the reason he wasnt giving me a 5 out 5 was that if he did so there would be nowhere for me to go next year!
This sounds like one of those "passive-aggressive" boogers that doesn't have the nads to give someone a 4 (not that you deserve only a 4... it's just an example) without saying "you're really are a 5" simply because (s)he doesn't deal with conflict well OR it's because 5 by 5s require extra justification that he simply doesn't want to take the time to write up.
If you deserve the 5, (s)he should give you the 5 and let you try for two years in a row.
What a load of hooie... I hate managers like that.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 24, 2012 at 7:43 am
mtucker-732014 (7/19/2012)
If you did have a group of people to begin with that had people who were 1 and 2, after you had weeded them out you would then be forced to rank people who previously 3,4, or 5 downwards even if their performance improved
You don't even need to start with a spread of 1 - 5 and weed out the 1s and 2s. You might hire the five best people in the world for doing a job and you'd still have to find one of them to be a 1. What does that do for staff motivation?
Would I work in such a system. Hello, no.
July 24, 2012 at 7:45 am
marlon.seton (7/24/2012)
mtucker-732014 (7/19/2012)
If you did have a group of people to begin with that had people who were 1 and 2, after you had weeded them out you would then be forced to rank people who previously 3,4, or 5 downwards even if their performance improvedYou don't even need to start with a spread of 1 - 5 and weed out the 1s and 2s. You might hire the five best people in the world for doing a job and you'd still have to find one of them to be a 1. What does that do for staff motivation?
Would I work in such a system. Hello, no.
Sorry, just saw paul.goldstraw made this same point.
July 24, 2012 at 7:53 am
Jeff Moden (7/23/2012)
Eric M Russell (7/23/2012)
Regardless of that formal methodology is used for appraisals, I expect that most managers mentally "stack rank" the employees in their department anyhow. What we're talking about here is a process that makes it more transparent; at least the team members know where they stand.That's why I said that managers that "stack rank" may not be good managers. If it takes a formal process to finally find out if you're doing well or not, then the manager probably isn't doing a good job with coaching, mentoring, enabling, or what have you.
I agree that it's probably not possible for the "big" manager to do that type of stuff with a large department but the "smaller" managers and immediate supervisors sure the heck can.
Honestly, in the IT world, people become mid level managers, not because they have a degree in business management, but because they were standing closest to the corner office when the last manager quit. Often times they're not formally trained in how to be a manager; their background is IT. Know what I mean?
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
July 25, 2012 at 11:17 am
mtucker-732014 (7/23/2012)
My recent experience was a rating in which my manager told me (and was obviously embarrassed to do so) that the reason he wasnt giving me a 5 out 5 was that if he did so there would be nowhere for me to go next year!
Moron. The fact you did something amazing this year doesn't mean you won't next year. Nor does it preclude it.
July 25, 2012 at 11:25 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (7/25/2012)
mtucker-732014 (7/23/2012)
My recent experience was a rating in which my manager told me (and was obviously embarrassed to do so) that the reason he wasnt giving me a 5 out 5 was that if he did so there would be nowhere for me to go next year!Moron. The fact you did something amazing this year doesn't mean you won't next year. Nor does it preclude it.
Likewise, he probably won't give you a 5 next year, because there would be "nowhere for you to go" the year following that. If you polish up your resume, I'm sure there are folks who could offer you a nice place to go.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
July 25, 2012 at 11:28 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (7/25/2012)
mtucker-732014 (7/23/2012)
My recent experience was a rating in which my manager told me (and was obviously embarrassed to do so) that the reason he wasnt giving me a 5 out 5 was that if he did so there would be nowhere for me to go next year!
Moron. The fact you did something amazing this year doesn't mean you won't next year. Nor does it preclude it.
It's also a self-defeating system.
I used to work at a company where your review had to include scores from 1-10 on various aspects of your job duties. Wasn't ranked against others directly, just "how good are you?" BUT, the CEO had a policy that nobody could ever get a 10, since then there'd be no room for improvement.
I pointed out that this actually made it a 1-9 scale, and if you ever got a 9, you'd have no room for improvement, since you could never get a 10. Which really means, if you want to leave room for improvement, you can only score 1-8, so you can get up to a 9 next time. And that makes 8 the best score your manager should give you, so you can improve to a 9. But that means that you can't ever get higher than an 8, so that there's room for improvement, and that honestly makes 7 the best score now. Which ... you get where this is going. Of course, it also theoretically should remove 1 from the scale, because there can always be someone worse, or you can forget something, which means 2 is as low as the score should ever be given. ... wash-rinse-repeat ...
Systems like that are made to be broken.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
July 25, 2012 at 3:25 pm
GSquared (7/25/2012)I used to work at a company where your review had to include scores from 1-10 on various aspects of your job duties. Wasn't ranked against others directly, just "how good are you?" BUT, the CEO had a policy that nobody could ever get a 10, since then there'd be no room for improvement.
I pointed out that this actually made it a 1-9 scale, and if you ever got a 9, you'd have no room for improvement, since you could never get a 10. Which really means, if you want to leave room for improvement, you can only score 1-8, so you can get up to a 9 next time. And that makes 8 the best score your manager should give you, so you can improve to a 9. But that means that you can't ever get higher than an 8, so that there's room for improvement, and that honestly makes 7 the best score now. Which ... you get where this is going. Of course, it also theoretically should remove 1 from the scale, because there can always be someone worse, or you can forget something, which means 2 is as low as the score should ever be given. ... wash-rinse-repeat ...
Systems like that are made to be broken.
Love it! So what type of response did you get when you pointed this out?
July 25, 2012 at 6:01 pm
I remember a manager said to me once.
"I don't like you're questions they're too difficult"
man that was disappointing and revealing.
cloudydatablog.net
July 25, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (7/25/2012)
mtucker-732014 (7/23/2012)
My recent experience was a rating in which my manager told me (and was obviously embarrassed to do so) that the reason he wasnt giving me a 5 out 5 was that if he did so there would be nowhere for me to go next year!
Moron. The fact you did something amazing this year doesn't mean you won't next year. Nor does it preclude it.
To be fair he isnt a moron (although stupid is as stupid does, right?) but he is relatively inexperienced as a manager and probably has 'guidance' (pressure) from above to rank in a certain way. The issue goes beyond stack ranking, performance reviews are great in theory but in practice Ive never come across a company that does it well enough that it isnt counter productive. Better I would say for a manager to develop a good understanding of his/her staff and communicate with them regularly all the time.
July 25, 2012 at 7:46 pm
GSquared (7/25/2012)
I used to work at a company where your review had to include scores from 1-10 on various aspects of your job duties. Wasn't ranked against others directly, just "how good are you?" BUT, the CEO had a policy that nobody could ever get a 10, since then there'd be no room for improvement.I pointed out that this actually made it a 1-9 scale, and if you ever got a 9, you'd have no room for improvement, since you could never get a 10. Which really means, if you want to leave room for improvement, you can only score 1-8, so you can get up to a 9 next time. And that makes 8 the best score your manager should give you, so you can improve to a 9. But that means that you can't ever get higher than an 8, so that there's room for improvement, and that honestly makes 7 the best score now. Which ... you get where this is going. Of course, it also theoretically should remove 1 from the scale, because there can always be someone worse, or you can forget something, which means 2 is as low as the score should ever be given. ... wash-rinse-repeat ...
Systems like that are made to be broken.
Management finds your proof-by-induction confusing and also not amusing at all.
I find it quite comical.
Maybe we should go back to the gradeschool system of "check" modified by plus or minus. That may still be too difficult. Maybe just smiley-face or sad face. Strive for mostly smiley-face.
When do WE get to rate idiotic systems of management and their legion of managers?
July 26, 2012 at 6:22 am
marcia.j.wilson (7/25/2012)
GSquared (7/25/2012)I used to work at a company where your review had to include scores from 1-10 on various aspects of your job duties. Wasn't ranked against others directly, just "how good are you?" BUT, the CEO had a policy that nobody could ever get a 10, since then there'd be no room for improvement.
I pointed out that this actually made it a 1-9 scale, and if you ever got a 9, you'd have no room for improvement, since you could never get a 10. Which really means, if you want to leave room for improvement, you can only score 1-8, so you can get up to a 9 next time. And that makes 8 the best score your manager should give you, so you can improve to a 9. But that means that you can't ever get higher than an 8, so that there's room for improvement, and that honestly makes 7 the best score now. Which ... you get where this is going. Of course, it also theoretically should remove 1 from the scale, because there can always be someone worse, or you can forget something, which means 2 is as low as the score should ever be given. ... wash-rinse-repeat ...
Systems like that are made to be broken.
Love it! So what type of response did you get when you pointed this out?
He didn't understand it. Poor enough math skills that it went over his head like Voyager 1 (120 AU out now!).
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 77 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply